Jump to content

Recommended Posts

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't forget Everton piped Duncan Ferguson onto

> the pitch as some sort of hero after he'd been

> released from jail (for assault)



Once saw Ferguson try and take out a Chelsea defender at an Everton corner only for him to up end his own team mate. One of those rare breed of opposition players, one I actually liked.

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> StraferJack Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Bad day at the office for Arsenal weekend

> wasn't

> > it - not only did we wearily predictably not

> match

> > up to our supposed peers, but teams all around

> us

> > jumped ahead of us

> >

> > My favourite bit was towards the end when

> Wellbeck

> > came in from right of screen like a Warner

> > Brothers cartoon character and completely

> upended

> > Fabregas. I almost hear the cartoon sounds in

> my

> > head

> >

> > Totally uncalled for and should have been a red

> of

> > course

>

> And not as bad as Cahill who wasn't shown a red

> card.


Welbeck was far worse but Cahill could have easy also been a red.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> of course you could point out the Cahill tackle

> and other incidents that didn't go our way - but

> really, why bother. Won't change a single thing,

> not least the fact that the better team did win.

> And we would have to say we could have had 2 or 3

> red cars of our own


Yes ref was surprisingly lenient for both sides. Which isn't always a bad thing.

Millhaven Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Parkdrive Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > StraferJack Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Bad day at the office for Arsenal weekend

> > wasn't

> > > it - not only did we wearily predictably not

> > match

> > > up to our supposed peers, but teams all

> around

> > us

> > > jumped ahead of us

> > >

> > > My favourite bit was towards the end when

> > Wellbeck

> > > came in from right of screen like a Warner

> > > Brothers cartoon character and completely

> > upended

> > > Fabregas. I almost hear the cartoon sounds in

> > my

> > > head

> > >

> > > Totally uncalled for and should have been a

> red

> > of

> > > course

> >

> > And not as bad as Cahill who wasn't shown a red

> > card.

>

> Welbeck was far worse but Cahill could have easy

> also been a red.



So you've surfaced then, behave yourself.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The only good thing about tonight is the penny

> > might drop with the board that you don't get

> into

> > the champions league for free, you need to

> invest,

> > and if you blend lack of investment with the

> wrong

> > manager, you are buggered.

> >

> > On tonights score, this team is not good enough

> > for any European competition.

> >

> > Slight reluctance to write off the manager is

> that

> > Strachan lost 5-0 in his opening CL qualifier

> and

> > failed to qualify. Next season beat AC Milan

> and

> > Benfica to make the last 16, but this guy

> looks

> > real bad so far, real bad.

>

>

>

> And he still looks real bad....



I think you're simply missing the competitive edge of Rangers. There's no pressure on the Celtic board to invest, believing they can sell their best players yet still have enough to win the SPL...

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


>

>

> I think you're simply missing the competitive edge

> of Rangers. There's no pressure on the Celtic

> board to invest, believing they can sell their

> best players yet still have enough to win the

> SPL...


Its an easy answer RD but flawed I think.


Lennon had no trouble keeping the competitive edge - that's part of the test of a good manager. Last season, already two years without Rangers, after loss of Wanyama and Hooper he won a record number of consecutive games and set a post war record for consecutive clean sheets.


No pressure to invest? They invest what they can afford to invest, with Scottish clubs in financial meltdown all around them, they need to be prudent. They have invested as much this year if not more than previous years - wanyama etc were all bought cheap. we haven spent more than a couple of million on a player for near a decade.


Their year on year spend on players is therefore I think quite consistent - Not reinvesting proceeds of player sales is a different thing and they have had to use this money to keep the club in decent financial shape esp in absence of champions league. That's why Lennon left.


Any Celtic manager is judged on Europe currently, the SPL is a given. But lose to Hamilton and you will be under pressure.

I think there were several reasons why Lennon resigned Mick. I'm sure one of them was that he felt he'd taken them as far as he could on the resources, the club was stagnating, a general malaise was setting in. Those records you cite were played in front of thousands of empty seats, and they will always have a hollow ring to them as Rangers weren't in the mix. Celtic should've been creating much better records, such as most points accumulated, and/or going through a season unbeaten. And the players you cited went to Southampton and Norwich respectively. Says it all. Celtic will struggle in Europe while the SPL is so uncompetitive...

The only thing I've ever grudginly liked about him was this statement he made a few years back.


?To be honest I never cared much for Manchester United fans. For the most part they?re clueless glory hunters, trying to add a sense of accomplishment to their own pointless lives by jumping on the bandwagon of a successful sporting club, in many cases on the other side of the world?


That from a Yanited "legend"

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think there were several reasons why Lennon

> resigned Mick. I'm sure one of them was that he

> felt he'd taken them as far as he could on the

> resources, the club was stagnating, a general

> malaise was setting in. Those records you cite

> were played in front of thousands of empty seats,

> and they will always have a hollow ring to them as

> Rangers weren't in the mix. Celtic should've been

> creating much better records, such as most points

> accumulated, and/or going through a season

> unbeaten. And the players you cited went to

> Southampton and Norwich respectively. Says it all.

> Celtic will struggle in Europe while the SPL is so

> uncompetitive...


If you wanted to entertain an ounce of realism and your knowledge of football finances you would understand that Celtic punched way above their weight (pound for pound) under Lennon, last 16 of the champions league - these were great achievements.


But don't come back on me again - I cant take any more. You have broken me already.

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The only thing I've ever grudginly liked about him

> was this statement he made a few years back.

>

> ?To be honest I never cared much for Manchester

> United fans. For the most part they?re clueless

> glory hunters, trying to add a sense of

> accomplishment to their own pointless lives by

> jumping on the bandwagon of a successful sporting

> club, in many cases on the other side of the

> world?

>

> That from a Yanited "legend"


0/10

It's a well known fake quote...

Roy Keane is a hero of mine. Much maligned for letting Ireland down in the 2002 world cup - which is completely justified in my opinion, but also worth remembering there is no way on this earth they would have qualified from a Holland and Portugal group without his amazing performances in the qualifiers when he really was top of his game.


footnote: Louis v Gaal was Holland manager btw.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> red devil Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think there were several reasons why Lennon

> > resigned Mick. I'm sure one of them was that he

> > felt he'd taken them as far as he could on the

> > resources, the club was stagnating, a general

> > malaise was setting in. Those records you cite

> > were played in front of thousands of empty

> seats,

> > and they will always have a hollow ring to them

> as

> > Rangers weren't in the mix. Celtic should've

> been

> > creating much better records, such as most

> points

> > accumulated, and/or going through a season

> > unbeaten. And the players you cited went to

> > Southampton and Norwich respectively. Says it

> all.

> > Celtic will struggle in Europe while the SPL is

> so

> > uncompetitive...

>

> If you wanted to entertain an ounce of realism and

> your knowledge of football finances you would

> understand that Celtic punched way above their

> weight (pound for pound) under Lennon, last 16 of

> the champions league - these were great

> achievements.

>

> But don't come back on me again - I cant take any

> more. You have broken me already.


Lennon was so good in Europe he achieved their worst agg defeat 5-0 to Juventus. Equalled it against AC Milan 5-0 the. Broke it again against Barcelona 7-1. All in the one calendar year!!!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...